# Crash footage from the Stargazer jet crash

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Voidhawk9

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I've been waiting to see how this one actually went down, having read the post-accident discussion in Kitplanes. Some of what comes to mind: HOLY COW!

#### Autodidact

##### Well-Known Member
It was such a relief to see the pilot get out and walk away.

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Reminded me of a chick emerging from a cracked egg shell.
If that happened to me I might not want to continue as test pilot either.

So lucky.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Was that Elliot or another pilot?

I cannot imagine how this turned out so lucky.

From the luxurious and perfectly risk-free comfort of a Monday Morning Armchair, it seems that the big error was not choosing another runway when the pilot saw the windsock 1/4 mile out on final. The Quickie is not known to have great X wind handling, regardless of the pwoerplant. And Mojave has two other runways, I can only assume that he had the option of choosing anther runway.

#### cheapracer

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
It was such a relief to see the pilot get out and walk away.
They built him better and stronger.

... and it only cost them $6 million dollars! #### BJC ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Question for those of you familiar with Majove: Were there options to execute a go-around without flying over the gaggle of parked airliners? Was he trying to make a tight turn to runway 22? Does anyone if the airplane was capable of climbing on one engine? Amazed, and pleased, to see the pilot emerge on his own. He is fortunate to have survived. BJC #### cheapracer ##### Well-Known Member Log Member Does anyone if the airplane was capable of climbing on one engine? We do now. #### wsimpso1 ##### Super Moderator Staff member Log Member Elliot Seguin was a Scaled Engineer, rebuilt a Cassutt for F1, built Wasabi for F1, struck ou ton his own doing airplane development, test, and racing. He is now a very accomplished test and race pilot, and was the pilot of the Twerp. Turns out it was uncontrollable with one engine out - Elliot was making full throw control inputs and still had little influence over where the bird was going. The plane took him away from the runway and over the parked airliners. He has continued with other airplane projects, finished the test series with Mooney, and continues as a race pilot. #### TFF ##### Well-Known Member I think the crosswind put him in a bad spot, but once he lost the engine, it and the wind kept him turning. I would think he would have leveled and climbed if he could have. He looked like he was also at the brink of stall most of the time, looking like a bad out of trim RC plane on a first flight. At a minimum he would not have chosen to fly over those planes if he had it in under control. #### BJC ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Elliot Seguin was a Scaled Engineer, rebuilt a Cassutt for F1, built Wasabi for F1, struck ou ton his own doing airplane development, test, and racing. He is now a very accomplished test and race pilot, and was the pilot of the Twerp. Turns out it was uncontrollable with one engine out - Elliot was making full throw control inputs and still had little influence over where the bird was going. The plane took him away from the runway and over the parked airliners. He has continued with other airplane projects, finished the test series with Mooney, and continues as a race pilot. Thanks. Glad that he survived. Was that the first flight of that airplane? BJC #### Hot Wings ##### Grumpy Cynic HBA Supporter Log Member Quickies have historically proven to be tough little planes in a crash. The footage pretty definitively shows that our shoulder harness attachment in not sufficient - assuming the one involved was per plans. That is the limit of my remarks about this in public.... #### Riggerrob ##### Well-Known Member Fantastic flying! Looked like Elliot was on the edge of stalling after that engine quit. On another note: it is amazing how much video cameras have changed out perceptions of crashes. With both of Elliot's cameras rolling, there is zero doubt about the sequence of events. Audio recordings even include the sound of the dead engine spooling down. On a similar note: I recently surveyed jump-plan crashes. Over a 2 year period, a total of 18 civilian jump-planes crashed (world wide) and people walked away from 17 crashes. Video footage is available for half the jump-plane crashes. GoPro footage shows who wore seat-belts and how far they got tossed around the cabin. One lesson-learned: jump-pilots who forget shoulder belts suffer facial lacerations. #### Aerowerx ##### Well-Known Member WOW! Looks like a scene from Star Wars. Many years ago the Today Show had some gun camera footage from an F-16 that did a dead stick landing when over Chicago, with solid cloud cover. I thought THAT was some hot stuff, but its nothing compared to this! #### choppergirl ##### Banned He's in a constant left turn after his left engine goes out, and rudder and ailerons aren't able to keep the plane straight. Me thinks something needs to be rethought. Too much jet thrust on one side, even thought it's close to the centerline, but held too far out from the fuselage, causing it to yaw greatly. Maybe the jets need to be moved in closer to the fuselage, or better, further away from the center of gravity, like further back on the plane (or forward), to lessen the torque it's putting on the plane to cause it to yaw. Like I say, almost always land straight ahead. He could of throttled down the other engine and plowed it into the empty dirt straight ahead, would of been safer, maybe just lose his lower wings or flip it. Everybody wants to turn back and save the plane and be incident free, and that's how lady luck gets ya. Glide it in, but I think... Quickies don't glide... or? Rather, glide like a concrete block with four razor blades for wings? Easy to be a lawnchair Olympic judge critic after the fact, but yeah, don't turn low over a bunch of commercial jets, kill that other engine and land in the empty dirt ahead. Don't fly planes with a big old TEST painted on the side (nice, I like that), out of airports that don't have big open fields at both ends of the runway, because, well, engine out after take off. Cold engines, tilting your plane skyward... water in gas, fuel flow problems, loose hose clamps or bolts, other problems, etc.. that's when you find them, right after take off. So like, pick your airport. Error #1, they picked a very bad airport back at home sitting in front of their computer, to test their plane from. Pick your airport. Look at it from Google Earth. Solid forest around it, 50% empty fields, 75% empty fields, 90% empty fields? Which is best to test any airplane from? I know a guy that spent years building an airplane from scratch, perfect, nothing wrong with it, and when he went to take it off, he used the 500ft of plowed bumpy soft cornfield patch next to his house. Way to soft, way too bumpy, way too short. Immediately flipped it over, gave up on it even though it needed only minor repairs, and is taking it apart for scrap.... because there's obviously something wrong with the plane. It would of leap into the air just fine from a 3000 ft abandoned local small town airport. He's building a totally different plane now to fly out of the corn patch (if his new design was a STOL that *might* work but he's not), and ignoring the corn patch is his problem. Rutan probably designed the Quickie to fly fast with the least drag to get someplace far away on the least amount of gas, and just kind of chucked gliding to a deadstick landing out the window as well as maybe a few other important things (like oh I don't know, using tiny wheels thereby no longer being able to land on rough terrain). I don't know much about Quickies, only they land way too fast for my taste. Neat idea though, to put mini-jet engines on a Quickie. Where do people get the $ to do that?

My Crash Summary (is the NTBS hiring?):

1. Picked wrong airport to test plane from*
2. Poor engine location - Engine out not taken into design consideration
3. Pilot should of throttled down remaining engine and landed straight ahead
4. No BRS?
5. Quickie seems like rather unstable design overall, lacks wing area, requires high speed to stay aloft (eliminating pilots option #3), it can't deadstick land (or?) :-/

VERDICT: utility house trailer better crash target than million dollar commercial jets. Oh, the whopping bill, if. Pilot +1. Pilot Pre-flight Planning -1.

*Actually, watching the video again, the airport seems surrounded by oceans of... desert. You'd have to work hard to fly into the only obstructions there, a group of parked airliners. So pilot -1.

NTBS: "what's your qualifications?" "Uh, I started a whole crashes in the news thread on an experimental airplane forum?" "Thanks for your time. We'll call you with our decision" :-/

Last edited:

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
Did it go through that portable building? of bounce off it? ****!

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
Maybe the jets need to be moved in closer to the fuselage, or better, further away from the center of gravity, like further back on the plane (or forward), to lessen the torque it's putting on the plane to cause it to yaw.
That feels like it should be true but it isn't. It's well worth taking another look at how a couple works when it comes to forces on things. I'm at work right now but if I have time later tonight I can get into it if nobody else beats me to it.

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Did it go through that portable building? of bounce off it? ****!
Into the building.

#### wsimpso1

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Thanks. Glad that he survived. Was that the first flight of that airplane?

BJC
I read some of Elliot's writing a while back, and I believe it was the third flight of the Twerp.